Earticle

Die Absicht von diesem Thema liegt in Wiedergedanke der Wirkung der Vormerkung. Die Vormerkung hat nur die Wirkung von Prozess. Um die Sicherung des Anspruchs auf dingliche Rechtaenderung zu haben, ist eine Vormerkung in das Grundbuch eingetragen werden. Die Eintragung der Vormerkung ist zur Sicherung kuenftigen oder eines bedingten Anspruchs zu erlauben. Jedoch ist es so umstritten, wie die Wirkung der Vormerkung in Korea zu gelten ist. Der Grund von diesm Problem beruht darauf, dass das koreanische BGB keine klare Regelungen darueber hat. Im Bezug auf der Wirkung der Vormerkung hat das koreanische Grundbuchgesetz nur eine Regel. Nach dieser Regelung wird das Recht mit dem Rang im Grundbuch eingetragen. Jedoch gibt es die Frage, ob die Vormerkung selbst eine materialrechtliche Wirkung hat. Wenn die materialrechtliche Wirkung der Vormerkung anerkannt ist, wird eine nach der Eintragung der Vormerkung getroffene Verfuegung insoweit unwirksam.

Nowadays, there is no doubt that enjoying sunshine is one of legal-right. But the matter of sunshine interruption is sometimes unavoidable depending on the extent and all the sunshine interruption must not be regarded as the infringement of the right to enjoy sunshine. For that reason, the legal problem of the system of civil remedy for a right to enjoy sunshine is more important. The construction laws and regulations works for the protection of right of sunshine with continuity. But on the part of victim, a remedy through individual decision based on civil law will be more effective on a definite and final method. There are a variety of opinions about the legal nature of the right to enjoy sunshine and many arguments about the system of civil remaedy for a right of sunshine. In Korean civil law, problem of a right to enjoy sunshine is based on Article 217 that is the regulation of a relationship between neighbors. If the degree of the sunshine interruption is over the limit of admission, the suffer can claim the damages or indemnity of which provision is based on Article 217 of the Civil law. The problem of damages relies on the code of tort ( Article 750 of the civil law ) because nothing is not mentioned on the damages or indemnity of a suffer in this provision. On one hand, when an infringement of right of sunshine takes place due to conflict between ownership power between both adjacent lands, the legal basis of retention demand right at the time of infringement of right of sunshine is found to be sought from the performance demand right of the proper measure duty at the article 217 of the Civil law. In the case that a joint tort between an existing and new bulding is not approved because the latter was built at a distance of time after the formew had been constructed, and the sunshine interruption by only an existing building did not exceed the limit of admission, the existing building is not responsible at all if the result of combined shadow after the construction of the new building exceeds the limit of admission.

Frequency contributes the state‐owned enterprise high salary, the state‐owned shareholder representative restrains adynamia the salary payment committee is titular, the marketplace has no way to give state‐owned enterprise height to be in charge of correct fixed price, "three have no " a high salary so, refraction futility being that owner anxiously expecting in become market oriented course Chinese lacks for a place , property right reforms exactly , system vacancy become estranged overseeing vacancy place , must work out the rational border urgently. Make the trust responsibility that state‐owned enterprise height is in charge of clear, urge the person to fulfill trust duty ,structure trust responsibility investigating mechanism public good legal action , strengthen the information disclosure duty that height is in charge of to state‐owned shareholder representative. Found science , the high‐effect state‐owned enterprise thereby highly superintending the mechanism restraining a law driving a state‐owned enterprises reform with regard to, governing perfecting our country state‐owned enterprise is machine‐made, being in motion and doing business raising state‐owned enterprise efficiency, the added value realizing state‐owned assets keeps value having very important significance.

Employers are willing to pre-formulate the terms of employment to enter into contracts with employees. Employers enact in the field of labor contracts the rules of employment for the purpose of concluding agreements with multiple employees, whereby the contractual partners of the employer, i.e. the employee are in a similar position as consumers confronting standardized contract terms of entrepreneur enjoying privileged market position. Employers, who will act as less-controlled entrepreneurs, are mighty enough to "dictate" the individual terms of contracts. Entrepreneurs have power to determine every and each condition of such contracts unilaterally in an overwhelming position, which would lead to the inevitability of making one of the two extreme choices, so to say "take it, or leave it" situation. When it comes to labor problems, the cause of these typical situation lies in imbalance of possibility to have influence on the contract terms, which originates from the deficiency of a third choice on the side of the contractual partner, or rather, employee. The Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act is enacted to establish sound order in business transactions and thus to protect consumers from confronting standardized contracts containing standardized contracts with unfair terms and conditions in them. Like the standardized contracts, the terms of employment containing unfair terms and conditions which correspond to the "abuse" concept of their prevailing negotiation position needs legal regulation. Therefore, the terms of employment is regulated by the Labor Standard Act. This study shows the difference between the regulations on the dimensions of contract- and/or consumer law and labor law, respectively. In case of standardized contracts, an entrepreneur shall clearly state to his customers the terms and conditions of standardized contract and deliver a copy of it and help the customer understand it. If an entrepreneur violates this article, he may not have the standardized contract terms integrated in the relevant contract. However, in case of the terms of employment, there is no any statutory provision ruling the legal effect when an employer has not satisfied all the requirements. This problematic reality is accessible to disputes in each specific cases. Where any part of the standardized contracts is null and void under article 6 through 14 that govern the legal effect of unfair clauses in standardized contracts, the relevant contract shall not be null and void as a whole pursuant to the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act. But where any part of the terms of employment is unfair or unfavorable to the consumers, the relevant provision is recommended to be corrected properly by way of administrative guidance which has no legal binding force. A person who has legal interests and a third party who is consumer-related organization etc may request for examination whether the standardized contract violate the Act. But there is no such statutory provision in case of unfairness of the terms of employment. There is an obvious difference in the penalty imposed to a person who fails to comply to an order of the Fair Trade Commission or the Ministry of Employment and Labor between standardized contracts and the terms of employment. The Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act provides the detailed rules about the standard contract terms used in relevant transactions. The Ministry of Employment and Labor promulgates with authority the standard terms of employment and distributes it to the employers, but legal basis is lacking and could hardly be more than a detailed guidance served as a sample. Wide usage of such standard terms of employment requires the process.

Many laborers that is making contract employment on modern society were revealed to various industrial accidents environment. Because labor contract is a kind of contract on capitalistic society, labor contract must contract equity between both employer and employee. But a labor contract is contracted in unequal circumstance actually. So the country is correcting some of inequality contract by establishe Labor Standard Law, and establishes Industrial Safety and Health Act for worker's safety and health's promotion. Nevertheless, worker is still staying to position which is inferior than employer. It is frequent that substantial guarantee about safe working environment is not achieved. When laborer gets occupational disease in these environment, laborers didn’t get satisfaction occasionally. because it is difficult that reveal the cause-and-effect relationship, It is insurance money by laborer's accident compensation insurance law that laborer can be rewarded most easily in case of disease by working environment in this circumstance. But Industrial accident recognition rate is not high actually. If claim for compensation get a refusal, last solution that can take in worker's situation is civil suit. So in this paper, I wish to search for civil law's solution that laborer can adopt.

유비퀴타스로 불리는 인터넷의 등장은 다양한 法的인 問題를 야기하고 있다. 또한, 인터넷의 匿名性이라는 그 특징을 이용하여 利用者는 権利侵害를 하는 경우가 많고, 그 責任問題에 있어 當事者를 特定함에 있어서 곤란한 경우가 적지 않다. 이러한 問題로 인하여, 인터넷상에서 발생하는 不法行為에 있어, 예를 들어, 음원의 著作権者와 이를 인터넷상에서 무단으로 権利를 侵害한 利用者와의 法的問題가, 특정할 수 없는 権利侵害자인 利用者를 대신하여 그 権利侵害의 장소로 이용된 인터넷 서비스의 管理責任을 가지는 管理者또는 利用者의 個人情報를 소유하고 있는 인터넷 서비스 프로바이다가 責任當事者로서 중요한 역할을 하게 되었다. 아울러, 그러한 인터넷과 관련된 法的紛争의 해결에 관한 論点은 各國의 인터넷 産業政策등과 관련을 가지고 있기때문에, 인터넷에 대한 규제도 各國에서 정하는 法律로 그 責任을 정하거나 완화하고 있다. 특히, 인터넷에서 일어나는 紛争은 단순한 國内的인 問題만이 아니라, 인터넷의 특성을 고려하면, 國際的인 紛争으로 일어날 가능성이 크다. 따라서, 인터넷상에서 일어나는 法的紛争은 단순한 國内的紛争으로 보기보다, 國際的인 紛争이 될 가능성을 포함하여 그 해결책을 모색하는 것을 중점으로 연구하여야 할 필요가 있을 것이다. 그에 앞서, 本論文은 韓國과 日本에 있어서의 인터넷 서비스 프로바이더의 責任에 관한 法制度를 比較하면서 그 共通点또는 相違点을 발견하고자 하는 것이다.